tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News January 11, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PST
upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson " tonight."th the government shutdown is now entering its fourth week. and neither side has moved much. the president has been arguing for the past three years that the united states needs a wall on its southern border. s agree with his positions or not, trump has explained whyit he believes that repeatedly and in great detail. most recently in a live address to the country. democrats, meanwhile, have argued the opposite. america should not have a border wall, they have said again and again. but the difference is they really haven't explained why. at various times democratic leaders told us that walls don't work. walls are racist. walls are wasteful.
they are insufficient. walls are excessive and too old fashion. they are medieval or ancient, depending who is reading the talking point at the time. some of the arguments are semi-real. others are transparently fake. still others flatly contradict one another. rhetorically, the democratic case against walls has been a mask from the beginning.hein at one point, house speaker nancy pelosi tried to bring order to the chaos by flatly declaring that walls are immoral. she said that repeatedly with the force of a religious edict, which in effect it was. but in the end the theology of it all was too complex and it seemed to confuse people. how can walls be immoral if a lot of those who oppose walls have walls around their own homes? that was a tough case to make. even for a persistent faith-leader like nancy pelosi. finally, pelosi just gave up. yesterday, she accepted the inevitably of a border wall. but here is the catch. the hidden trap door in the space time continuum that pelosi is famous for in washington. yes, democrats now support a border wall.
but no, it's not the kind of wall you had in mind. the kind of wall you can touch. or the wall that might keep unwanted people out of your country. it's instead a digital wall. it's a massive, invisible edifice constructed of virtual constructed entirely of 1s and 0s that reside in some amazon server farm somewhere in suburban virginia. it's the wall of the future, in other words. a wall that google might build and probably will. pelosi calls it a technological wall. >> what we are proposing is to build the infrastructure of the ports of entry. strengthen that. the ports of entry. spend the money. it's hundreds of millions of dollars but accessible to have the scanning technology to scan cars coming through for drugs, contraband of any kind. weapons even. repair the roads, facilitate immigration and trade in those regions.
the positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing. >> tucker: of course! a technological wall. why didn't we think of that? but wait, you say. aren't all walls technological walls? the only difference, of course is in the kind of technology they employ? well, yes. but before you get hung up on a semantic point, be grateful that pelosi is using the "w" word at all. there was a time not long ago telling us a fleet of lawnmowers would be enough to secure the border. >> let's talk about where a more serious structure might do, or mowing the grass so people can be smuggled through the grass. >> tucker: att a certain point, you begin to wonder if democrats are as serious as athey say they are about wanting to secure the border. maybe you asked yourself that question. well, wonder no more.
they are not interested. officially. democrats support our immigration crisis, which they will be quick to remind you isn't actually a crisis at all, but part of the poem of the basis of a the statue of liberty. democrats' main interest is continuing the status quo. they want to do that and make sure certain no effective barrier is ever built along the southern border. to achieve that, democrats and their faithful lackies in the press will say anything, literally anything. yesterday, to name but one among million examples, democrat katie hill of california, member of congress, accused trump of terrorism for disagree with her. >> it's frustrating every day to see how irrational he is. we can't accept it anymore. it's political terrorism. >> tucker: terrorism? maybe that's next week talking point.ke check the sunday shows to see if it makes an appearance there. this week the phrase was "vanity project." the wall, they are telling you, is somehow the president's vanity project,
like a remodeled basement rec room or the clinton presidential library. some consultant thought up the line and e-mailed it to pelosi and schumer, who made sure everyel democrat in washington included it in every publicly uttered sentence for a period of at least 24 hours which they were happy to do, being robots. watch.de >> construction brigade for the president's vanity project. >> ite doesn't necessarily require our building of vanity project, concrete wall. >> for one thing, this is a vanity wall. >> the president is holding it up as his vanity project. >> the president of the united states has a vanity project that he doesn't want to give up. >> this is not on the president's vanity project. >> this issue is about a vanity project for this president. >> tucker: vanity! well, that is a new concern in washington. as it turns out, vanity is the main reason the left loves mass immigration in the first place. they let millions of poor people into your country at your expense. but they get to feel likee
heroes for doing it. it's really the equivalent of forcing a stranger to dump his wallet into the collection plate at gunpoint and taking the tax deduction for it. it's a great deal if you're holding the gun. in fact, you might call it the ultimate vanity project. a retired special i.c.e. agent who joins us tonight. thank you very much for coming on. >> thank you, tucker, for having me on. >> tucker: what do you make of this? the technological wall, the vanity project. you have spent your life policing our borders. do we need physical wall, an actual wall? >> well, tucker, i have to say this is personal. i have worked in mexico.d i have worked on the border. born and raised there. i was attacked and agent cepata lost his life while we were in assignment in mexico. i know that this is real and the crisis is real. the border wall is very much needed. this is a physical barrier that will
help our border agents down there. help them just like the other technology would help them. the drones, the sensors. all the other technology that comes along the border, the border wall is just another b tool that will help them do that. it's much needed so they can focus on the areas where that trafficc is going to be infiltrated to. >> tucker: so in the shooting you referred to, you were hit three times. you were shot three times by a member of a mexican drug cartel. >> yes. >> tucker: how do you, m as someone who went through that, what is your response when you hear member of congress, congressional leaders saying there is no crisis at all and we're imagining it and, in fact, it's racist to say there is a crisis at the border. how do you respond? >> the crisis is real. i lived it and worked it. especially the racist comment is unreal. mexico now is looking to startal to control their own southern border by sending their own federal troops down to the owguatemala and belize border because they're feeling the
impact of the immigrants coming through theirir country. so are they going to be racist as well? so it's absurd to think that it makes it a racist statement because -- or it makes you a racist because you want a wall. let me tell you what is immoral. what is immoral is the exploitation of the asylum laws. congress needs to shut down and redo the asylum laws and legislation. i'll give you an example. if an adult person comes into the country with a minor child and presents themselves to the border patrol, and turns themselves in seeking asylum, if that adult person has a criminal history and is known to have a criminal history, border patrol will have to still admit that person in withst the child. even though that person is now inadmissible to come in the country, we have to allow them to come in with the child to
seek, to wait for the asylum hearing two or three years from now and we'll never hear from that person. maybe that adult person is or not the parent of the child. we'll never know what happens to the child as well. so there is a real crisis at the border happening right now. >> tucker: have you spoken to the speaker of the house nancy pelosi or the democratic leaders as they formulated their position in the debate over the border wall? has anyone talked to you? >> no, but i would love to. there is a major disconnect between washington and congress and what is going down in real life on the border. it would be so effective to have a them just at least go down there and, not just for the photo-op or for a ten-minute walk where there is an actual wall that actually works, thanks to jim acosta. but to actually learn what the real crisis is down there. not today, tucker. this has been going on for decades. this is just now the influx.
i talked to the border patrol agents and they tell me they want this response to go forward with the wall. they are so afraid if this doesn't go through, they can't imagine the influx of illegal immigrants going through because they'll send the wrong message. >> tucker: yeah. i can't imagine how you feel. if i was shot three times by a drug cartel and watched my partner murdered and someoney called me a racist because i wanted a wall, i don't know how you remain so calm, but i'm certainly impressed that you doy thank you for joining us, victor avila, and for what you had to say. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: thanks. as you deduced by now, democrats using every rhetorical weapon they can to stop the border wall. twashington democrat jayapal suggested that the president's ultimate goal in all of this ethnic cleansing. watch. >> there is a cluster of people in the republican party who catapulted trump to his
win in the primaries who hate and/orri fear immigrants. not only that, these are people who define their political life by stemming and stopping the invasion of the people who do not look like them. what they want is not policy. what they want is an ethically pure america. >> you just said it so beautifully, chris. this has never been about a wall. his ultimate goal is, as you said, to make america pure, in the sense of not having immigrants, not having folks of color here, and shutting down every form of legal immigration. >> tucker: chris hahn is a radio host and former staffer for senator chuck schumer. chris, thank you for coming on. >> anytime. >> tucker: i don't know if you saw the interview preceding this one, with the i.c.e. former agent victor avila. he is in favor of a physical wall.
he is being dismissed and others like him arere being dismissed as racist because they disagree with the democratic orthodoxy on this. isn't it time to pull back and assess this as a policy question and stop accusing anyone who disagrees of bigotry? >> look, i don't think that he is a racist. i don't -- >> tucker: that's generous. >> i don't think people who want increased border securityen are necessarily racist. some people may be in some cases, but not all. i think we need to have a real conversation about what real border security is. we talked about it. i believe wed should use technology at the border.. in some places, the physical barrier is needed. but in most places, the thousand miles the president is saying, seems irrational. >> tucker: that's a fair conversation. but how can we have a rational conversation about anything when you have cable news anchors and members of congress saying that wantingbo this barrier is equivalent to ethnic cleansing? that shutdowns any possibility for a rational conversation. i got so mad watching that cliff i can barely talk because it's so unfair. shouldn't we ask people like that to be responsible and someat talking like to so we can
solve the problem? >> i think there is a certain school of thought that the talk of the wall is to stoke a part of the base, keep part of the base with the president who believes in this xenophobic idea of keeping people invading the country. that language doesn't help but if they want to have a rational conversation about border security, the president should reopen the governmentve with a deal he made in december, before he pulled it back, andd bring everybody to the table and we can talk all about the options. >> tucker: what you were talking about is a hostage situation. we are going to call you hitler and accuse anyone who believes o this thing of being racist, the one thing you are not allowed to be in america, until you cede our demands. if you believe we need to decelerate the rhetoric, why not just start? whyto not say, we are not going to accuse people with no evidence of whiteh supremacy or whatever the crime is, we o are going to talk about what will secure the border? let's just start there. can't we? >> look. i don't hear leader schumeroo or
speaker pelosi calling the president and his supporters racist. i hear them saying --- >> tucker: nancy pelosi -- >> -- and then we'll talk. >> tucker: really? nancy pelosi described thee' wall as immoral. that is what she is saying. that is insane. noww she is for a wall. >> you are hung up on that. we had this conversation last i week. >> tucker: i never heard anybody talk about that way in american politics. you you disagree with me and god is mad at you now? even jerry falwell didn't talk that way. it's insane. >> again, i don't think she meant it as immoral in the religious sense. >> tucker: she doesn't have command over her faculties, which i'm beginning to suspect. let me ask you this -- >> i think she has excellent command of her faculties and a better leader than we have seen. >> tucker: either she knows what she is saying or she doesn't. i give her the benefit of the doubt but if she knows what she is saying she should be ashamed because you shouldn't inject that language in y political discussion in my opinion.
let me ask about the technological wall. >> i've been calling for it. >> tucker: it would include drone surveillance. >> i've been calling for it. >> tucker: we already have -- maybe you don't know, we have a species of that. it doesn't work. what would it look like exactly? a drone hovering over illegal aliens trying to sneak in the country, sees them coming in, and what happens that is better than the wall? >> you deploy the border patrol. if you don't waste $25 billion on a wall, you can hire more agents like the guy on before who are brave and doing their job.ts instead, he wants too waste money on a wall and we won't h have the manpower to staff it! by the way, tucker, if you call -- >> tucker: what you are saying doesn't make sense. you are saying, we won't have the manpower -- >> it makes perfect sense. >> tucker: you just said -- byr: the way, the agent, the brave one you complimented, is calling for a wall. but i guess his opinion doesn't matter. >> he is not a policy maker. >> tucker: yet another spanish-speaking racist. you are just saying, because
i'm a literal person, you are sayingeq that it would require more manpower to, "staff a wall" than it would -- >> yeah. >> tucker: -- to protect the border with no wall? walk me through the math on that, if you would. >> as i've said to you before, you probably would need to have a guard every 150 feet on a wall to make sure it wasn't impenetrable. so when they use examples of the people's home and other places with walls, like prisons, they are out of their mind. we are talking about thousands of miles of wall. it did not work for the chinese. it will not work for us. the great wall of trump is not w needed and it's a colossal waste of money. >> tucker: last question. would you be willing to predict that the technological wall that the speaker is promising us instead of an actual wall, would prevent a substantial number of illegal aliens from entering the country? we don't know how many but let's say 400,000 made it across last
year. that seems to be a number people throw around. what would the number be if the drones were deployed, do you t think? or do you care? >> i think that a>> technological wall would be as effective as physical border. >> tucker: what is the number? let's be specific, if you would? >> i don't know. 75% of the number. >> tucker: i'll get a calculator. >> i think a wall, eventually -- remember, tucker, most people come here illegally come through the ports of entry. most drugs come through ports of entry. we need to work on securing those things. >> tucker: i'm sure we'll work real hard. workar real hard. this is a charade. you know it is. we're out of time. good to see you. chris hahn. thanks. >> nice to see you. >> tucker: cnn told us yesterday that walls don't work. [laughs] whatever that guy's name is down there. to prove it, they tried to get p a reporter on to parrot their line, but when he wouldn't, they didn't want him. this is an amazing story. we have details on what cnn did after the break. ♪ one hour pickup order?
to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast. ♪ >> tucker: well, local news station in san diego accusing cnn, the cable news network, of rejecting a report by them because it didn't reach a pre-approved conclusion about the effectiveness of a border wall. trace gallagher is following the story and joins us tonight. hey, trace. >> the news director steve cohen says he was notified in yesterday's morning meeting that cnn wanted to use one of their reporters for a live hit about the border wall during "the don lemon show."
cohen said, fine, and offered them reporter dan plant. i'm from san diego and i have seen dan many times. he is very solid. but steve cohen told histe executive producer to make sure cnn realizes they won't deliver their narrative, that the wall is controversial in san diego, because it's not. in fact, kusi owner mike mccannon, a well-known supporter of conservative causes, later noted, "we're continually told that the barrier helps prevent illegal drugs, entries from the u.s. and numbers prove it." kusiecided not to use a reporter. but then the news director saw cnn correspondent jim acosta at the border saying there is no need for a a wall. steve cohen decided to have his anchors present the kusi perspective. watch. >> cnn declined to have us on their programs, which often present the wall aspr not required in other places like the stretch of the texas border the president visited earlier today. they didn't like what they heard from us.
>> cnn calls this a nonstory saying, "we called several local stations to book someone for aon show. we didn't end up booking any of them. that happens many times every single day." kusi says it's possible cnn didn't need a reporter but given the scenario, it believes the cable network is being disingenuous. tucker? >> tucker: trace gallagher, great to see you. thank you. we saw the story and we thought who better to talk to than chris plant, syndicated radio host with westwood one. widely acknowledged genius and the brother of the san diego journalist you just heard about and a long-time veteran of cnn. so he joins us tonight and we're happy to have him. hey, chris. >> hey, how are you? all of those things. sounds pretty impressive. [laughter] >> tucker: you really are the perfect person. what are the lessons of the story? what does this tell us? >> that cnn lies a lot. really, that is the bottom line.
they were looking for a local reporter who was going to tow the line and say whatha cnn wanteded to hear. some person at cnn, probably a very young person, called kusi and asked for a reporter. then they heard, well, you know, they are going to say that the border patrol people tell them the wall has a positive effect, the barriers and the fences, whatever you like to call it. then they said, no, thank you. if this were a dating situation, speed date, everybody would recognize that cnn dropped them because they weren't going to offer what cnn wanted to hear. we know what cnn wants to hear because we hear it every minute of every hour of every show. it's very consistent. this would if someone came on and said, what we are hearing in san diego -- and my brother has been covering the border and san diego for years and years. there are many great stories on al gore's amazing internet that you can see. they wanted a different
perspective than what my brother, as a news reporter, just a straight news reporter, my brother is not an idealogue, he is a news guy. but he wasn't going to spout the democrat party line. and cnn took a pass. no thanks. i say there is no evidence, now the "associated press" is in it, and cnn saying there is no evidence that cnn spiked the story for that reason. there was no evidence that brett kavanaugh put quaaludes in the punch bowl and gang raped girls in high school but cnn reported that several hundred thousand times, if i remember correctly.. >> tucker: i noticed. i thought of you yesterday. cnn undercut its own story line unintentionally by sending their most brilliant correspondent down to mcallen, texas, who did this now famous standup explainingla that the wall doesn't work because it creates too peaceful a scene. back at headquarters in new york, what did the editors think when they saw this?
who told jim acosta he just hurt his own propaganda? >> they were probably thinking it was great. they put it on the air. it wasn't live. he sent it in. and they aired it because they l thought it would prove the point for them. really, this speaks to thehe bubble that they live in and the fact that they are just -- once twitter exploded and mocked him, then i think in new york, and they were saying wait a minute. maybe we should have looked at this with a slightly different angle. then they sent him to another place along the rio grande where there is no fence. he said people are playing shuffleboard, as if this were proof of his original point. it's sad, really. tragic. it's horrible. cnn, you used to work at cnn before for a time. >> tucker: i did. i still have friends there. >> but they won't admit that you are friends and you shouldn't name them here. >>t tucker: i'm not going to. [laughs] >> it would be fatal to their careers. we know this. if you say my good friend, you know, steve, at cnn -- if i said that on my radio
show, i know i would be jeopardizing steve's future at cnn. i know this. it's that bad. it was a news organization. it is simply not anymore. a it's just a cable television station that parrots the democratic party line. it's sad, it's tragic. i feel badly for the few good people that still work there. >> tucker: really quick. i agree with your analysis. in one sentence, what happened, what changed? >> to cnn? >> tucker: yes. >> boy, john klein, who is the president there -- but it started before him. cnn was a pretty good news organization and they started to bring in abc people. rick caplan. you remember when he came in. you have to change the subject every 15 seconds. short attentioner span theater. we can't focus on anything for too long.us >> tucker: i remember! i remember. >> they are very corporatey. >> tucker: i will never forget. >> the anticorporate argument when it comes to cnn and time warner that the left make is true. it actually applies at cnn
that they have become too greedy and too corporatey and too bottom line. it's about the revenues and not journalism. it's just become a tv station. a cable station. depressing. chris plante, great to see you tonight. thank youke for that. >> thanks. >> tucker: a new wave of democratic lawmakers taking office this month.. they have ambitious plans to do a lot of things, including take your guns away. they are not hiding it this time. dan bongino joins us to weigh in on that next. ♪ chicken?! chicken. chicken! that's right, candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken!
>> tucker: bringing back with a fox news alert. the broward county sheriff sc >> tucker: bring you back with a fox news alert. the broward county sheriff scott israel has been suspended from his post for incompetence by the new governor of florida ron desantis. other than the school shooter nikolas cruz himself, israel may deserve most of the blame for the death of the 17 peoplel at stoneman douglas high school last year. the report by the state found israel's deputies were poorly trained, had malfunctioning radios, and took cover rather than trying to confront cruz and save lives. israel vowed to fight his suspension in the courts and demanding a trial before the florida state senate. we'll continue to monitor the story as it unfolds. well, the parkland shooting last year was seized by the left, which would like to seek even stricter gun laws. now they're doing that. in oregon, a proposed bill would ban owners buying more than 20 rounds of ammunition per month. it o would also ban magazines tt
hold more than five rounds, with nono grandfather clause. that means if anyone who fails to turn in a high-capacity magazine, high-capacity meaning six rounds or above, would be a criminal under this new law. dan bongino, the former nypd officer and author of "spy gate" and he joins us tonight. dan, laws like this is ath departure because the first effect is to turn law-abiding citizens who have committed no violence and turn them toho criminals by definition. what is the point of that? >> yes, you arede right. the irony is criminals don't care about the gun laws. that is what makes them criminals. i spent two decades in law enforcement. i will never forget, one night, we were watching the cells. we watch the prisoner and take them to precinct and hold them
before they go to booking.erhe i talked to people who were arrest and there were people arrested for the gun crimes. i asked them. this isho a true story. carrying guns is illegal in new york without a license, criminal possession of a weapon.ioio i remember, they'd look at me and they are like, are you crazy? do you think we care about the gun laws? they look at you like, what planet are you from? criminals don't care. one more thing. you know what they -- they love gun laws, because they stop law-abiding people from getting guns so the criminals can prey upon you like the sheep you become when the government disarms you. >> tucker: so this law particularly is so provocative and such an open act of aggression and hostility toward the law-abiding americans. what is thehe effect of this going to be? there are many, many thousands of people who own firearms. any gun with a magazine almost certainly has more than a five-round capacity. so all of them are now felons? what is the effect of passing a law like that?re seriously. >> keep in mind, this criminalizes standard capacity magazines. >> tucker: exactly right. >> the democrats love their talking points.
they say "oh, high capacity magazines." these are not high capacity magazines they are criminalizing. these are standard, run of the mill magazines that have beenth in circulation in the united states for decades upon decades. this effectively criminalizes law-abiding, parents looking to secure their homes and in some cases, we saw with ridiculous proposal in new york, excuse me in new jersey, even potentially off-duty police officers who accidentally have their dutyav magazines with them off-duty before they had to look into this debacle. tucker, this is a disaster.is this will do nothing. criminals, this will create a lucrative black market for criminals to traffic in ammunition. a new law, you can't buy more than a certain amount of rounds in a few days. do you think the criminals care about this? you're enriching street criminals that create black market out of it. they don't care about your gun laws! g full stop. they don't care. they are just going to criminalize the law-abiding. >> tucker: this is a really
reckless thing even to propose, i would say. dan bongino, thank you very much for the perspective. >> yes, sir. >> tucker: well, the u.s. senate as an institution, the body itself, has been denounced by the "atlantic" magazine, and piece is written by the liberal, so you know what conclusion was. the senate is racist.he why? smaller states have proportionally more white people in them and it argues that the senate's signature feature, equal representation for all states, that is why the senate exists, should be abolished. w even though the u.s. constitution forbids this, the piece argues it can in fact be done without as constitutional amendment. leslie marshall is a radio show host and joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. how exactly is the u.s. senate, just by its structure, racist? >> well, if you look at the composite of the united states,d and you could say sexist as well, if you want to go on the theory of the article, the senate doesn't properly represent the united states because, as you had mentioned, the small states having two senators, as every statete does of the 50. and the small states actually
have, if you break it down statistically, larger representation.at what you have then is you have white men representing a less white nation as we go forward. we don't see the hispanic or the african-american or the female population represented in the diversity we see most recently elected in the house and the midterms, as an example. we don't have that in the senate. >> tucker: okay. but the senate, we made it 250 years with the senate organized this way. it was organized this way by design. t i don't think the framers imagined a country where the small states would had white majorities and the other states wouldn't. it's not a racial question is it? why make it one? >> the racial component is fair to look at and to ask but it goes beyond that. we need to look at, did the framers, did the framers know or have any idea, certainly not, not only how large we would become. what our numbers would be as a nation. but what the diversity would be. that goes hand in hand.
we have made changes to thety constitution in the past. you can actually abide by the constitution, tucker, keeping two senators per state and then adding to that based on population. which you know the framers at one time considered as well, before they wrote the final piece. >> tucker: you know as well as i do, this is a power grab by the left. i don't think it will ever happen. but i wonder if we will take the principles seriously. what do you make of gavin newsom? the argument is, people can't be represented unless they look like them and have the same d.n.a., the samehehe race. a nonwhite state, nonwhite majority elected a white guy governor. why should he be allowed to be governor of a state that's not majority white? i'm serious. >> i'm serious as well. i don't accept the argumenti' you are putting forth. i don't believe that only a woman can represent me as a woman. >> tucker: i thought that's what you were saying. i agree with you, of course! i don't agree with that either. i would never argue that. >> no. no.
no. what i'm saying is, to properly represent all americans, so if you look at the constitution, it also gives us political equality. individuals, citizens, notty states' political equality, the individual and citizen. we don't feel our vote counts. why? each and every individual in this nation, because not each and every individual inot this nation feels they are represented, whether it's -- >> tucker: hold on. you are dodging -- you are making the same argument you did the first time. i got it right, i think. diversity, whatever that means, is like a critical factor in the political fairness. you guys in california just elected gavin newsom. who does not by any standard represent the state. it's not majority white. it's not majority male. you elected a white male. so why should he be allowed to be governor? why is that not a racist act electing gavin newsom? i'm serious. because he is a liberal?ew >> that is what i said. well, it doesn't have to do with just your skin color.
it also has to do with what legislation do you want to put forth that will be in the best interest of the people in the state of california? he obviously mirrors and echoes the sentiments of the ideology of the majority of the people that voted for the governor and -- >> tucker: why has no one complained about this? i just notice, we are all very, we need to look like the people we represent but, like, bill de blasio represents a city that looks nothing like him. we're okay with that because he is liberal? why does no one accuse -- why shouldn't bill de blasio step down today in the name of diversity and let his wife run the city? i'm not joking. >> if you look at bill de blasio's family, his family is the new american diversity. his wife is african-american.. his children are biracial. so i think actually that was a good example to put forth. >> tucker: but the patriarchy is still in charge. his wife is not the mayor of new york city. >> but you are making -- >> tucker: the white guy is
the mayor of new york city -- >> you're messing -- mixing up color and number. >> tucker: no, i don't mix up color. i wish we had more time. i talked myself into being concerned about this. maybe you will come back and explain why it's okay for him to be mayor. >> the reason the left brings it up is because of the numbers, which you and i talked about before. >> tucker: they bring it up as a political cudgel to beat the other side. it's great to see you. >>o you too. >> tucker: the left has a brand new solution for fighting crime. just change the laws and make it legal. we explore the new trend of accepting so-called survival crimes. that's probably a phrase you haven't heard. we'll introduce you to it after the break. buckle your seat belts. ♪ ust got a zerowater. but we've always used brita. it's two stage-filter... doesn't compare to zerowater's 5-stage. this meter shows how much stuff, or dissolved solids, gets left behind. our tap water is 220.
♪ >> tucker: this is a fox news alert. the "new york times" reporting in 2017, the f.b.i. opened o an investigation into whether president trump was secretly a russian agent. trace gallagher is following this report for us tonight. trace? >> yeah, just came out, the "times" is reporting in the days president trump fired james comey, the days after as the f.b.i. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned about the president's behavior, they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of russia. in other words, whether the president's actions constituted a threat to national security and whether trump unwittingly had fallen under moscow's influence. now, the reasons given, the first was a letter mr. trump wantedo to send mr. comey about his firing but never did. in which he mentioned the russia investigation in the letter. the second reason being that troubled investigators was an nbc news interview two days after comey's firing where
mr. trump appeared to have said he dismissed comey because of the russian inquiry. the investigation also reportedly looked in thell public allegations of whether firing comey amounted to obstruction of justice. we all know that. the report says theus f.b.i. agents had grown suspicious of trump's ties to russia during that o 2016 campaign but held of opening an investigation because of the sensitivity of the situation. of course, days later, special counsel robert mueller took over the inquiry. and now it's apparently part of mueller's broader assessmentr of course, no evidence has come out publicly that mr. trump was secretly in contact or took direction from the russian government in any way and there is no word of any sourcing on the story. we should note that rudy giuliani has a issued a s statement saying, "the fact that it goes back a year and a half and nothing came of it, that showed a breach of national security, means they found nothing." and giuliani said that a short time ago regarding the story. we'll get breaking news as it comes in.
more on this from the "new york times." tucker? >> t tucker: trace gallagher, thank you for that. so if you are keeping track atra ahome, and get a pen and paper because this is worth remembering. w this is why you should never criticize the f.b.i. you think it's your birthright as an american. you can do it. i wouldn't try it, though. they might open an investigation into you without your knowledge into something appalling. maybe it's beating your wife or dealing fentanyl to kids or betraying your country with vladimir putin.ea you don't need to to have done it. but two years later they can leak they were investigating you for a crime that you didn't commit or they found no evidence you committed and they never charged you for it. the way the system is supposed ysto work. it doesn't matter because you're instantly discredited. don't criticize the f.b.i. very unwise. if you live in a major american city like san francisco or washington, you may have noticed things aren't as nice as they used to be. there is more trash in the streets. there may be tents on the street corners. those are homeless camps. some of them are permanent. petty crime is much more of a
threat. this is a big change. it's not an accident. it's by design. there is a new concept on the academic left called "survival crimes." they are supposedly committed by the poor in their struggle to survive in the country. in response to the existence of the survival crimes, the left is now not calling them crimes. they are decriminalizing some of the behaviors entirely. chris derusso is the director of the documentary foundation and he joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. i never heard the phrase before. "survival c crimes." havefo i characterized it correctly and what are the implications for the rest of us? >> you have. survival crime theory is the idea that vulnerable populations, such as the homeless, should be exempt from laws against public camping, public drug consumption, and theft, because, in effect, society has forced them to commit the crimes to ensure theirr basic survival. this idea has been percolating in obscure academic journals since the late 1980s.
but now it's become public policy in major american cities. in seattle, some of the member of the socialist activist class have now basically created a policy regime in accordance with survival crime theory. the results areva catastrophic. we now have in king county more than 6,000 people sleeping on the streets. anden my contacts in law enforcement tell me there is the explicit and the implicit directive to basically let this happen. and at this point, the city of seattle, property crime rate is 250% higher than los angeles. and an eye-popping 400% higher than new york city. >> tucker: so what this really is a guilt transfer, isn't it? it used to be when someone made your life worse, made your neighborhood ugly or stole from you, it y was that person's fault. but this new definition transfers the responsibility to you, the law-abiding homeowner. all of a sudden, it's your fault, it's society's fault so you can't do anything about it,t, correct? >> this is i think what the
biggest danger for this socials justice policing is that slowly in cities like seattle we are creatings parallel justice systems. there is one traditionalal justice system for taxpaying, middle class citizens, and totally separate system for politically favored identity groups. i think this has the potential to undermine the core principle of equal protection under the law. >> tucker: i mean, at ahe certain point, are people going to start to say, i don't want to live around people who victimize ordinary americans, the homeless encampment, and i ddon't want to live around the politicians that make the homeless encampment possible? aren't normal people going to leave? ipl wouldn't live around that on a dare. would you? >> seattle is a great city but everywhere you go there are homeless encampments. even in my neighborhood within a block of a public elementary school, there has been a homeless encampment with up to 50 people doing drugs, committing b crimes, and causing chaos. a block away from a public
elementary school since last summer.. there has been no response from the city government despite hundreds of complaints over months and months and months. i think we are reaching a point where normal, everyday taxpaying citizens are fed up. this government by ideology that is totally blind to the impact that it's having on real citizens is hopefullypa going to start to face some consequences as we move forward with the municipal elections later this year. >> tucker: this isn't even blind. this is an act of aggression. when they treat you this way, they are saying we hate you. i don't know the other message. s [laughs] christopher, thank you. that is so interesting and sad at the same time. good to know. i appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. friday. >> tucker: happy friday. well, robots pose a threat to tens of millions of american jobs. washington doesn't care. what can you do to protect your own well-being? that's next. ♪ chicken?! chicken.
>> tucker: last night on the show, we discussed artificial intelligence to a >> tucker: last night on the show, we discussed artificial intelligence and american jobs, it is profound. the leaders are ignoring that threat. they want to import more and more low skilled labor. washington is not going to help you, that is for sure, they are it worse. you are on your own on this one, so what can individuals do to survive an economy that is devaluing labor, and in a lot of cases, making it obsolete? the founder and ceo of praxis, and he joins us tonight, one of our favorite guests. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: you've seen the forecast from a lot of different
places, a pretty scary one. a huge percentage of american jobs are going away. let's say you are 22, entering the job market, what is your defense against this? >> the first thing is what you lead with, to bring it back to what you have control over. rather than letting yourself get consumed by fear of what will or will not happen in a macro economy, what can i do, personally, what do i have control over? the first thing is, robots, machines, what are they good at? following rules. anything that involves a lot of rule following, i wouldn't be investing resources, energy, time, in learning and building those kind of skills. i would be focusing more on rule breaking, on innovation, entrepreneurship. that is one of the challenges most of us, the school system, the innovation, the entrepreneurship, it almost gets schooled out of us, because it is all about rule following, learning to do exactly what is on the test. entrepreneurship in the school
context is called cheating, creative problem-solving. i think breaking out of that mind-set, not looking at it like,i i need to go and study ad get certified and do what i am told, and then i will be able to have a career, but rather, if ib want to do something, be the next tucker carlson, go start a podcast, go start a youtube channel, get your hands dirty, experiment, tinker, that is the biggest thing. >> tucker: that is such a wise point. i'm all for following rules, but there is also a downside, and our schools seem to be getting more rigid, less open to creativity. less open to unorthodox thinking. that is a bad trend, then. >> it is. it is the nature and the structure of a mass system trying to push everybody through, same age group cohorts, you have to think beyond that kind of traditional rule following idea, and you've gotd to look at -- the opportunities
out there. at praxis, we work with young people all the time, focus on trying to help them develop skills that are ultimately transferable and in demand no matter what. the jobs around today, nobody knew these were going to be here 20 years ago, and the same thing is true of the future. we don't know the opportunities there, so having skills that are transferable and adaptable, being creative, imaginative, communication skills, the ability to work in teams, to cast a vision, to recruit people behind that vision, these sound like fluffy, soft skills, but honestly, those are the things that are the most uniquely human, and the things that are hardest for machines to replace. i think where you get the mostha return on your investment. >> tucker: interesting. you sound a little less worried. >> i'm optimistic by nature. i see the opportunity there, and i see the young people we work with, they are able to see this. i like investor mike maples said once, i don't want a future where everybody is worried about robots taking their job, i want a future where everybody has their own personal iron man suit. that is the vision i can get behind.
>> tucker: i hope you create one, i could probably use one. it is great to see you. thank you for that, that was abl nice way to end the week. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: one last thought on low skilled workers. they areha being replaced, but e american wealthy are getting richer by the year. we want to put that in context. you might have heard that amazon ceo and overlord of "the washington post," jeff bezos, is getting divorced. we will not get any personal drama, obviously, but we will tellll you this. the bezos family fortune is $137 billion. our gdp of the country is $19 trillion. that means one american divorce court overseeing one divorce has 0.7% of the country's entire gdp in the balance. one divorce! [laughs] almost a full percentage pointnt of gdp, unbelievable. that tells you a lot. that's it for us tonight. we will be back monday,
8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. most important. have a great weekend. everybody has earned it after a week like this, next week is going to be unbelievable. see you then.♪ ♪ >> sean: welcome to "hannity." nancy pelosi, she refuses to negotiate. chucky schumer is unwilling to compromise, all while death, destruction, drugs, cartels, gangs, and carnage in america continues to mount. on wednesday, a 16-year-old boy from long island, new york, was seriously stabbed by three ms-13 gang members who were in this countryy illegally. on monday, an illegal immigrant in maryland was arrested afteron he paid ms-13 gang leaders $100 to have sex with a 14-year-old girl who was being trafficked by thale